Wednesday, July 27, 2011

FW de Klerk, Apartheid-era South Africa's last Prime Minister, recently gave one of the all-time stupid speeches by a former leader. In the speech he called for a non-racial approach to politics in South Africa. That de Klerk, always good for a laugh. Jerry Brown is good for a good for a laugh, he's appointing Goodwin C. Liu to replace California Supreme Court Judge Carlos R. Moreno, 62. Liu has never been a judge, but is reliably hard-left and anti-White. Hispanics are upset because Moreno was the only Latino/Hispanic judge on the court, which will now have four Asian members, and three White judges. Even more good for a laugh, the Pew Hispanic Report which as Steve Sailer notes, shows a huge wealth gap between races.

Add it all up, and America is in for South Africa style laughs. As the have-nots conspire with the have-lots, to get more the only way they know how: take from the have-middle-class.

First, de Klerk's spot of idiocy. The reason Apartheid lasted so long is because everyone, White, Black, Indian, and Mixed Race knew the endgame. Blacks, and Blacks from the most powerful tribe, would take everything, and everyone else would be varying caste levels downwards, with Whites at the very, very bottom considered not even human (and thus, disposable). There would be no place, none at all, for any White in non-Apartheid South Africa. This was the reality. Why such a repressive regime that exacted large costs to its White population (the need to personally bust heads, always an ugly and depressing task, international sanctions and displeasure) lasted long after the writing was on the wall.

de Klerk states:

It is unacceptable to sing songs calling for the shooting of anyone. It is unacceptable for Julius Malema to call whites criminals - and to add that their land should be seized without compensation. It is even more unacceptable for President Zuma to sit on the same platform, smiling, while Malema, as a key office bearer in the ANC, makes such racist comments.

It is unacceptable for Gugile Nkwinti, our Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, to declare that all "colonial struggles are about two things: repossession of the land and the centrality of the indigenous population." He is actually saying that the colonial struggle is not yet over; whites are colonialists whose property must be seized; and only ‘indigenous' South Africans are central to our society. People from minority communities must presumably be content with a peripheral or second-class status.

It is unacceptable for the Judicial Services Commission to ignore unambiguous constitutional requirements regarding the manner in which it should be constituted - and then to refuse to fill vacancies on the Cape bench, despite the availability of eminently fit and proper candidates, simply because they happen to be white.

It is unacceptable for COSATU and the SACP to set as their mid-term vision the utterly unconstitutional goal of “worker hegemony in all sectors of the state and society.”

Can one imagine the outcry that would rightly ensue if a member of the United States government were to call for the re-establishment of the centrality of the white majority? …According to the ANC's Strategy and Tactics analysis, the establishment of our non-racial constitutional democracy in 1994 was not the end of the liberation struggle - but only a beach-head on the way to the ultimate goals of the revolution. The struggle has continued relentlessly since then - and it has been directed primarily against our constitutional accord.

The ANC's first priority after 1994 was to shift the balance of forces in its favour by seizing what it calls the levers of state power. These include "the legislatures, the executives, the public service, the security forces, the judiciary, parastatals, the public broadcaster, and so on." This was not just empty rhetoric. Using cadre deployment, the ANC has taken vigorous steps to take over - or to try to take over - all these institutions. In the process it is obliterating the constitutional borders between the party and the state; it is undermining the independence of key constitutional institutions and it is opening the way to large-scale corruption and government impunity.

The ultimate goal of the NDR is a ‘non-racial democracy' - in which all aspects of control, ownership, management and employment in the state, private and non-governmental sectors will broadly mirror the demographic composition of South Africa's population.

Like the communist ideal of the ‘classless society', the non-racial democracy has a superficial appeal - but is equally unattainable. In practice, demographic representivity would simply result in racial domination - what the ANC calls "African hegemony" - in every facet of the government, society and the economy.

To achieve its goal of eliminating what the ANC regards as "apartheid property relations" the NDR would require massive and forced redistribution of property and wealth from the white minority to the black majority. It would also require the disemployment of large numbers of people from minority communities.

Whites, Coloureds and Asians would be corralled into demographic pens in all aspects of their economic and professional lives according to the percentage of the population they represent. The prospects of South African citizens would once again be determined by the colour of their skins - and not by their skills, their contribution to the economy or by what Martin Luther King called the content of their character.

Malema's inflammatory rhetoric, Gugile Nkwinti's land reform proposals, cadre deployment, the failure of municipalities and government departments - can be traced back, directly or indirectly, to the NDR's corrosive and unconstitutional ideology.

De Klerk's speech is profoundly stupid, because all of what he is complaining about is EXACTLY what was on order the day Apartheid ended. Black South Africans will never forgive nor forget, not unto a millionth generation, Apartheid. Incapable of generating wealth on their own, and facing the inevitable mismanagement attendant of the leadership of Jakob Zuma. Democratically elected, Zuma has five wives, all of them polygamous, has been on trial for rape (of an HIV-positive woman), has more than twenty children, a number illegitimate, and lacks any education beyond primary school, being primarily a former cowherd. Zuma's predecessor Thabo Mbeki, who was want to expound on how "spores" cause AIDS, and sex with a virgin would cure it, was no better.

Zuma's primary objective is to survive as leader so he can steal as much money as possible, to live a large lifestyle. All those kids and wives cost! He could care less about anything else, and that is exactly why he was elected.

Julius Malema is a rising power, the head of the ANC Youth Wing, who wants boiled down to essentials to shoot all Whites and take their property. He'd like to live that big man life too, and so would his followers. Most Black South Africans feel this would be a fine thing. They don't see any way else to better their lives, they hate White people, and feel Africa is no place for Whites (or anyone else besides Africans).

In "Dreams from My Father: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE," Barack Obama recounts a visit to Nairobi, Kenya, and a lunch with his half-sister. They're enraged by poor service and fawning attention to White tourists (who pay more than government officials) by the Indian proprietors. Obama describes with affection his dead father's plan to nationalize all property not belonging to Africans, and give it to Africans, after throwing all non-Africans out. Africa, Obama Sr. had declared, belonged exclusively to Africans and no non-Africans had any business holding property or doing anything but visiting for a short time there. A sentiment Obama Jr. endorses in the retelling, in his book. As Obama notes, all the monuments and cultural achievement in Europe left him cold. He felt no connection to them, despite being half-White. But the poorest slum in Kenya, he loved.

You can find the same sentiment among Indonesians about Diaspora Chinese, or Whites, or people like Obama. The Malaysians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese all hold similar views. Their nations belong to the ethnic majority, non-ethnic compatriots have no business doing any business there, holding property or even living and working there. This is universal. As soon as the curtain went down on Apartheid it was only a question of when, how, and whom the seizure of all White property and exile/internment of all Whites (and indeed, all non-Africans) would happen in South Africa.

De Klerk should have known this. The price for the end of Apartheid in South Africa was all non-Africans getting out. No example in human history, ever, has had a multi-racial, multi-cultural, peaceful and "diverse" setting without a brutal tyrant killing lots people on a regular basis to enforce his rule and favor certain groups. Humans just are not built that way. No we cannot all get along, the best we can hope for is living apart peacefully.

But De Klerk is good for a laugh.

So too is Jerry Brown. Brown is appointing Goodwin C. Liu, a rabidly anti-White, hard-left lawyer who has never been a judge before, into the California Supreme Court. Latinos are angry:

“It should have been a Latino and somebody who was native to Southern California,” said Victor Acevedo, president of the Mexican-American Bar Assn.

“We are almost the majority of the people of the state of California, and for the governor to say there isn’t one Latino who is qualified to serve on the court is extremely troubling,” he said. “That to me is like the governor turning a cold shoulder to the Latino community in Southern California.”

Of course, Whites are down to only three representatives on the California Supreme Court. And this matters because who you have on the court bench determines how the goodies get sliced up. Given that much if not all of decisions involving who gets what money, justice, special privileges, treatment, and so on come from the court systems, a fight over who is on the bench is inevitable. This is just one of the ways in which a "diverse" society has a huge cost overhead compared to a mono-ethnic one.

Mono-ethnic societies don't fight over division of resources based on race. With a temptation to screw over the losers, permanently. You also don't have cow-herd polygamist clowns like Zuma as President. Even a relative unknown and non-entity like Truman was a far better leader, far more widely read, far more experienced, far more educated, far more able, than a clown put up by a race-based system like South Africa's.

But most laughable is the Pew Hispanic Center data. That Latino demographic juggernaut? It has a median household net worth of $6,325, compared to Whites at $113,149. Blacks are at $5,677, and Asians at $78,066. Or put it another way, more than half of Hispanic households (and Black ones) have almost no money at all.

Blacks of course are not expanding demographically. The Census Bureau reports that Blacks were 12.9% of the population in 2000, and 12% in 2010. All races lost income, during the recession, but Blacks and Hispanics had low starting points anyway. Hispanics have been unable to create wealth, in contrast to Asians who though they lag behind Whites do not do so in the order of magnitude ways that Black and Hispanics do.

A mostly White America, facing a Black population that has no means or hope of any means of being anything other than a Welfare Transfer burden, can probably support that wealth transfer as long as times are good and the burdens not too heavy. There is no way this can happen with Latinos at essentially the same household income as Blacks. There's just too many Latinos.

Latinos are poor, and remain poor. They represent an ever increasing burden on White household income at a time when that income has declined, about 16%. Meanwhile, triumphalist "we are replacing you" rhetoric which is underscored by demographic reality is matched by "give us your money." And, "We have ownership of Supreme Court Seats, and other positions. They are ours!"

This won't end well. Flight first, as the exodus in California becomes a flood. Who wants to pay for illegal alien families, as what amounts to second or third class citizenship in California? Texas and other places will be next. Then fight, but one characterized by intermittent rather than sustained political action. Almost all White Middle and Upper Class women are in favor of mass immigration, open borders and such. As repeated endlessly here on Whiskey's Place, this is because ordinary White Middle and Upper Class guys are Beta Males. Repulsive to women, who want "sexy back." At any rate, they don't like a mono-ethnic culture. Advertising is a window onto the way elites think they can influence the (almost exclusively female) target audience. And anti-ordinary-White-Guy disdain just drips from advertising.

Quite likely there will be an intermittent political action designed to stop illegal immigration, transfer payments to illegals and their descendants, but one that will be fragmented, doomed, and a massive failure. Most (not all but most) Middle and Working Class women WANT demographic replacement. Just look at Househunters International:

A "sexy" and "not boring" life is just what the Doctor ordered to spice things up. It's Eat Pray Love all over again. If the personal is political, the political is personal. Mass immigration means cheap nannys and gardeners, no more "boring" mono-ethnicity, and something exotic right in your backyard. Better than an exotic pet!

Laughs are coming though, as the have-nots (the Latino underclass with a median household income of around $6,000) combine with the have-lots (rich White elites) to screw over the White middle class. Will America turn into Brazil? I think not. More like South Africa, with an explicit race-based class system, rigid quotas, and massively failing infrastructure.

Why not Brazil as the US future? Because the expectations are too high. Brazilians only recently emerged from abject poverty to semi-starvation, and while they expect an improving lifestyle, anything up from a favela likely to be buried in a mudslide is a plus. Just having food to eat most days is a step up. In America, the expectation is that Whites are moved to a fourth/fifth class status, AND the modern Welfare state is kept up. It is quite true that with votes and the monopoly on state power, a Goodwin Liu led California Supreme Court could issue rulings say, dis-allowing White votes in elections in order to achieve "racial fairness" and that such a ruling would meet "Constitutional tests" (because Constitutions don't matter -- they are mere pieces of paper, only people willing to defend them matter). The South African Constitution is a marvel, probably more enlightened than the US Constitution. And like the Soviet Constitution, completely ignored. The US Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court and other judges say it is. That is all.

So yes, undoubtedly Whites have been pushed out of full equality in life, in terms of how justice, taxes, and other goodies are divided. Third or fourth class status no doubt looms for Whites in the US, and probably all of Europe. Camp of the Saints, massive demographic change, and Whites a discriminated, third class minority in places like the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and yes Norway are already inevitable. All those poor people in North Africa want the nice things that Europeans have, they need only get on a boat and take them. Europeans won't stop them, most of the female population would figure it would be a good thing anyway.

But, you cannot make someone work as a serf or slave any more than the whip can lash. The modern Welfare State and the ability to transfer prodigious sums of money to Big Men and a trickle to patronage objects is dependent on a White middle class that makes even bigger sums of money. The nirvana of "post-racial" government merely means Whites as official fourth class citizens, perhaps not even legally considered human.

That outcome will happen, in South Africa and elsewhere, because Big Men get by for the moment making it happen. When the money runs out, they'll think of something else. Meantime, those twenty plus kids and five (and counting) wives need money!

So the last laugh will be on the victors. Sitting in a burnt-out hospital, dying of an infection that would have been routinely cured only thirty years ago. As the lights flicker out all across the Western World. Even the White elites all for a multi-culti, diverse world will be the object of the joke. All that money Soros collected won't do him a bit of good as it becomes basically worthless, and he cannot buy anything more in health care than a dancing Witch Doctor. All Western medical care having been interned along with the White Middle class that supported it.

In the end, it all comes down to money. The new demographic wave just can't create it. And you can't get money from a despised fourth class minority.

"Soon all shall be burned. The West has failed. It shall all go up in a great fire, and all shall be ended. Ash! Ash and smoke blown away on the wind! The West has failed. It is time for all to depart who would not be slaves."

Now, I agree that white women are too numerous and too united in their disdain for beta men for a solution to emerge that involves women. However, I think you misdiagnose or at least overemphasize why white women are so in favor of open borders and mass immigration. Women are, to put it bluntly, usually lemming-like. They'll follow the popular fashion and ideology. That means support of open borders, mass immigration, and "anti-racism" (really anti-white, when you boil it down): basically the religion of an otherwise nihilistic and morally relativistic West. I don't think they (usually) make the connection between swarms of third world invaders and potential mates. They may have a romanticized ideal of foreigners-as-romance-objects from Hollywood, advertising that seeks to make beta white men even more repulsive to them, and so forth, but I just don't believe this is their primary reason for supporting mass immigration and open borders. They certainly care little that the white beta men are being ethnically replaced, though, that much is obvious (and they find any expressions to the effect that this is a bad thing, icky and weird and mean).

Now, female support of affirmative action and political correctness, there I do believe they make a more clear connection between support of these policies and their own self-interest. They know that, should the wealth transfer mechanism from (mostly beta) men to women should stop, should the affirmative action discrimination in favor of women stop, should family law be fixed (and theft of children and the ex-husband's wealth stop), should subsidization of a million female desires and wants (college, for one, despite women being 60% of attendees) stop... they are going to have to be more dependent on those icky beta men. So they support PC full-stop, generally (again, it doesn't hurt that it's fashionable and basically the state religion). Unless they're married, which tends to make them more conservative (ultimately about self-interest again)... of course, as you've documented, even for upper-class women, the allure of the bad boy may ultimately take hold, shaming and consequences be damned, and so marriage will be putting less and less brakes on female support of all things PC, it seems.

Whiskey,Your conception of Brasil is entirely imaginary. I lived in Brasil for three years in the early 1970's. It was a modern country then and certainly not characterized by starvation and abject poverty. Abject poverty is Mali or Haiti.

I you want wonderful women, go to Brasil. I found the best possible wife there.

I agree with the anonymous above. There is no "abject poverty" in Brazil, perhaps only in the North/Northeast, but even there the situation is much better than decades ago. The problem in the slums is mostly violence, caused by drug dealers, but people have what to eat. It's not Somalia.

The South and Southeast of Brazil are more Caucasian (and now with a sizeable Asian population too), and there are modern cities and industry and all that. Beautiful germanic and italian women too, ever heard of Gisele Bundchen or Adriana Lima? And yes more amenable and less spoiled than American women. It's not all bad. Yet. Yes there is a socialist government now there ruining everything, copying all the things from the US - affirmative action and all that crap.

Linked via Drudge. Between this and Matt Drudge's "racist" flash mob coverage, I suspect that he knows much more than he lets on. For the past year he's spent little time covering the mideast and a lot more on HBD-tinged stories. As he well should - how many people died in the World Trade Center, compared to those killed by "vibrancy" since 2001?

Aug 5 edition of WSJ on my iPad has a story on kraft food's breakup under Irene rosenfeld. Not surprising to me, predicted krafts downfall in my business class in January; having learned from reading this blog (& many others) to spot rent seeking destructive behavior. (now if only I could formulate a proper sentence at 5 AM)

Back in the days of the South Africa Sucks website, I commented more than once that what was going on in the new rainbow nation of South Africa was a preview of what would happen in the rest of the Western world should current trends continue. And now we see flash mobs and London burning. Perhaps things are going faster than anticipated?

It is unacceptable for Gugile Nkwinti, our Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform, to declare that all "colonial struggles are about two things: repossession of the land and the centrality of the indigenous population."

Now, I suppose that one could point out that the Bantus are not "indigenous" to South Africa, and that the Boers came to the Cape long before anyone else and thus are "indigenous" to that part of SA. And that by the above quoted principles of anti-colonial struggles, the peoples conquered by the Zulus have a right to regain their lands.

But that does not fit into the narrative. What it's really about is a race war, but an odd kind of race war in which whites not only refuse to fight, but even refuse to acknowledge exists. Perhaps it is because most white people do not want to get into the ugliness of such a race war, but I'd venture to say that such refusal is viewed as weakness by blacks and such.